Saturday, March 03, 2007
Preparing for the Next Disaster: the Wrong Way
President Bush has taken another photo op tour of the areas hit by Katrina. Tornadoes pound the South. The discussion everywhere turns to subsidizing rebuilding. What will government do to aid the recovery?
The question is all wrong.
There doesn’t seem to be a shred of intelligent discussion on the topic; it’s taken as a given that government should provide long term recovery aid, and the only issue is how much. Well, there are two serious problems with bailouts: a moral one and an economic one. Both of these are closely intertwined, and once one understands them, one realizes that aid for recovery is investment to maximize damage over the term. And one realizes that this is a case where government officials really are maliciously and knowingly making things worse.
The moral argument: why should Ms. A be forced to pay for Mr. B’s misfortune? The usual argument is that Mr. B’s misfortune was an “act of God,” and that it’s only fair, since Ms. A has a similar right to help from Mr. B should she ever become a victim of a random disaster. Recovery aid is “just like insurance.”
But aid isn’t “just like insurance,” not even vaguely. Disaster aid is simply a transfer from A to B. It’s unclear why B should have any right to a share of A’s wealth, just because of misfortune. What’s so fair about this? To put it in perspective, why is B’s need considered more important than A’s property rights, or A’s needs for her own wealth? Presumably A has needs as well – by what moral calculus was B’s need to A’s property determined to preempt A’s rights and needs? (The obvious answer: it’s determined by the political economy of rent-seeking and vote-seeking.) For those who think need trumps all, did someone stop to check what A’s needs might be? Perhaps Ms. A is a single mother trying to raise children and put herself through college, while scraping by on what she can earn? (I’ve had a number of students in my classes whom this describes perfectly.) Is Ms. A’s husband out of work, battling cancer, while Ms. A works multiple jobs and goes heavily into debt trying to hold things together? Or for that matter, is Ms. A simply living a normal life, pursuing happiness and paying her own way as she does so? The phony “moral calculus” used by advocates of the “fairness” of damage reparations is rarely framed in these terms, since it’s always just “the government” or maybe “rich fatcats” who are supposedly paying.
Obviously, no such moral calculations are made. If they were, it would be obvious there’s no standard by which B’s “need” trumps everyone else’s rights and needs to their property, other than arbitrary assertion. Well, I exaggerate – the standards “this will buy us votes” and “hey, this is a way for me to gain at A’s expense” aren’t exactly arbitrary.
The economic argument: what are the effects of this koo-koo moral argument? The effect is to destroy incentives on the part of potential victims to take measures that could minimize their exposure to damage in the future. To the extent reparations are made, the incentive to protect oneself is reduced. Here’s the obvious difference with insurance, since with a properly designed insurance program the premiums reflect risk, so that the insured retains incentive to take actions that reduce risk. Hence, paying bailouts encourages behavior that will maximize the damage next time around.
Everyone knows this, everyone knows that New Orleans is at higher risk of catastrophic disaster than Des Moines. If people in Des Moines must pay when people in New Orleans are damaged, what incentive do New Orleanians have when rebuilding? Whatever it is, it isn’t to minimize the exposure of the poor people of Des Moines. Reparations create incentives to rebuild in ways that increase risk and of future damage. Why take costly measures to minimize your exposure when you know someone else will be forced to bail you out if things go awry?
Since everyone knows that damage reparations and rebuilding subsidies have these effects, the proposed remedy is a kind of central planning, where “experts” decide who may rebuild on their property, who may not, what can be built, and what cannot. This exponentially raises the harm done, as it effectively cancels whatever property rights Americans still have. It’s ironic, but not surprising, that the direct harm is being inflicted particularly on poor black people, largely by white environmental and land planners. But we all suffer from the indirect harm when property rights, the fundamental basis of “human” rights and of the market, are systematically turned into grants of government permission.
So here’s the bottom line about taxpayer-funded damage reparations. They’re immoral, they set citizen against citizen, they create incentives to build in ways and places that will make future disasters even more costly, and they create incentives and arguments for bureaucrats to “remedy” the situation by taking away our rights.
OK, but what’s this about government officials “knowingly and maliciously” making things worse? These ideas are pretty well understood within government. Interestingly enough, bureaucrats within USDA have even argued that disaster payments in agriculture ought to be eliminated for the reasons I describe here. (These people aren’t all evil, it turns out!) But for whatever harm it creates for the country in the long run, disaster reparations do benefit recipients, and even more so their elected representatives. If doled out skillfully, disaster aid does do wonders for the careers of politicians and bureaucrats involved. This lesson isn’t lost on them, and hence, don’t expect to see any intelligent discussion on this issue.
I would think post-science has something to say on this issue, since it so directly considers the future values of assets under alternative policy regimes and states of nature.
Comments, anyone?
The question is all wrong.
There doesn’t seem to be a shred of intelligent discussion on the topic; it’s taken as a given that government should provide long term recovery aid, and the only issue is how much. Well, there are two serious problems with bailouts: a moral one and an economic one. Both of these are closely intertwined, and once one understands them, one realizes that aid for recovery is investment to maximize damage over the term. And one realizes that this is a case where government officials really are maliciously and knowingly making things worse.
The moral argument: why should Ms. A be forced to pay for Mr. B’s misfortune? The usual argument is that Mr. B’s misfortune was an “act of God,” and that it’s only fair, since Ms. A has a similar right to help from Mr. B should she ever become a victim of a random disaster. Recovery aid is “just like insurance.”
But aid isn’t “just like insurance,” not even vaguely. Disaster aid is simply a transfer from A to B. It’s unclear why B should have any right to a share of A’s wealth, just because of misfortune. What’s so fair about this? To put it in perspective, why is B’s need considered more important than A’s property rights, or A’s needs for her own wealth? Presumably A has needs as well – by what moral calculus was B’s need to A’s property determined to preempt A’s rights and needs? (The obvious answer: it’s determined by the political economy of rent-seeking and vote-seeking.) For those who think need trumps all, did someone stop to check what A’s needs might be? Perhaps Ms. A is a single mother trying to raise children and put herself through college, while scraping by on what she can earn? (I’ve had a number of students in my classes whom this describes perfectly.) Is Ms. A’s husband out of work, battling cancer, while Ms. A works multiple jobs and goes heavily into debt trying to hold things together? Or for that matter, is Ms. A simply living a normal life, pursuing happiness and paying her own way as she does so? The phony “moral calculus” used by advocates of the “fairness” of damage reparations is rarely framed in these terms, since it’s always just “the government” or maybe “rich fatcats” who are supposedly paying.
Obviously, no such moral calculations are made. If they were, it would be obvious there’s no standard by which B’s “need” trumps everyone else’s rights and needs to their property, other than arbitrary assertion. Well, I exaggerate – the standards “this will buy us votes” and “hey, this is a way for me to gain at A’s expense” aren’t exactly arbitrary.
The economic argument: what are the effects of this koo-koo moral argument? The effect is to destroy incentives on the part of potential victims to take measures that could minimize their exposure to damage in the future. To the extent reparations are made, the incentive to protect oneself is reduced. Here’s the obvious difference with insurance, since with a properly designed insurance program the premiums reflect risk, so that the insured retains incentive to take actions that reduce risk. Hence, paying bailouts encourages behavior that will maximize the damage next time around.
Everyone knows this, everyone knows that New Orleans is at higher risk of catastrophic disaster than Des Moines. If people in Des Moines must pay when people in New Orleans are damaged, what incentive do New Orleanians have when rebuilding? Whatever it is, it isn’t to minimize the exposure of the poor people of Des Moines. Reparations create incentives to rebuild in ways that increase risk and of future damage. Why take costly measures to minimize your exposure when you know someone else will be forced to bail you out if things go awry?
Since everyone knows that damage reparations and rebuilding subsidies have these effects, the proposed remedy is a kind of central planning, where “experts” decide who may rebuild on their property, who may not, what can be built, and what cannot. This exponentially raises the harm done, as it effectively cancels whatever property rights Americans still have. It’s ironic, but not surprising, that the direct harm is being inflicted particularly on poor black people, largely by white environmental and land planners. But we all suffer from the indirect harm when property rights, the fundamental basis of “human” rights and of the market, are systematically turned into grants of government permission.
So here’s the bottom line about taxpayer-funded damage reparations. They’re immoral, they set citizen against citizen, they create incentives to build in ways and places that will make future disasters even more costly, and they create incentives and arguments for bureaucrats to “remedy” the situation by taking away our rights.
OK, but what’s this about government officials “knowingly and maliciously” making things worse? These ideas are pretty well understood within government. Interestingly enough, bureaucrats within USDA have even argued that disaster payments in agriculture ought to be eliminated for the reasons I describe here. (These people aren’t all evil, it turns out!) But for whatever harm it creates for the country in the long run, disaster reparations do benefit recipients, and even more so their elected representatives. If doled out skillfully, disaster aid does do wonders for the careers of politicians and bureaucrats involved. This lesson isn’t lost on them, and hence, don’t expect to see any intelligent discussion on this issue.
I would think post-science has something to say on this issue, since it so directly considers the future values of assets under alternative policy regimes and states of nature.
Comments, anyone?
Comments:
<< Home
Not only does government "insurance" reduce the incentive for people to take sensible measures to reduce risk, it also reduces the incentive for people to respond charitably to disaster. There is a strong inverse correlation between levels of personal bequests/charitable donations and levels of government-funded charity. Countries like the USA and Canada have much higher levels of personal charitable giving than European countries, and much lower levels of state-sponsored charity. I doubt this is a coincidence. I would rather rely on millions of people making their own judgments about what they want their charitable donations to be spent on than on one central organisation making those decisions for all of us.
A good example of government "insurance" reducing people's incentives to behave sensibly is the level of development along your south-eastern seaboard, in areas prone to hurricane damage. Huge numbers of expensive properties have been built in recent years in places where they should never have been built. Many of them would have been uninsurable in the open market, but thanks to federal flood insurance, there is no need to worry about that. This is probably the largest single factor in the rising cost of hurricane damage, which many assume is due to more frequent and/or severe storms, and often attributed to global warming.
A good example of government "insurance" reducing people's incentives to behave sensibly is the level of development along your south-eastern seaboard, in areas prone to hurricane damage. Huge numbers of expensive properties have been built in recent years in places where they should never have been built. Many of them would have been uninsurable in the open market, but thanks to federal flood insurance, there is no need to worry about that. This is probably the largest single factor in the rising cost of hurricane damage, which many assume is due to more frequent and/or severe storms, and often attributed to global warming.
Thanks for the comment,Bruno.
I believe you're correct about the effects of gov't disaster relief on charity, but it is perhaps difficult to show by cross-country comparisons, since there are all sorts of confounding factors like culture. And of course, culture might explain why countries differ in amount of disaster relief gov't provides.
I tried to be careful to avoid calling disaster relief "insurance," because it is not. Despite the deleterious effects of gov't subsidized insurance, disaster relief is worse in creation of moral hazard problems.
I'm not sure gov't insurance is the leading factor responsible for the rise in damage (I don't know); do you have any sources on this? I'd be interested.
These issues will become increasingly important as fears of climate change grow, whether those fears are warranted or not.
I believe you're correct about the effects of gov't disaster relief on charity, but it is perhaps difficult to show by cross-country comparisons, since there are all sorts of confounding factors like culture. And of course, culture might explain why countries differ in amount of disaster relief gov't provides.
I tried to be careful to avoid calling disaster relief "insurance," because it is not. Despite the deleterious effects of gov't subsidized insurance, disaster relief is worse in creation of moral hazard problems.
I'm not sure gov't insurance is the leading factor responsible for the rise in damage (I don't know); do you have any sources on this? I'd be interested.
These issues will become increasingly important as fears of climate change grow, whether those fears are warranted or not.
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SRVNJDQ
Don't worry about whether the first part - the claims of increasing incidence of hurricanes due to global warming - is true. It's the second part, on costs of insurance, that is relevant. True, it doesn't quantify exactly what share of increased costs of storm-damage are attributable to inappropriate buildings, but the drift is clear.
It would be interesting to look at increases in total real-estate value on the south and east coasts and compare that with increases in prices to get an idea how much additional value was due to construction vs price-increases. And then compare that with the increases in total claims for storm damage to see whether claims are increasing faster than values. I can't find that data easily, but it would be a useful corrective to the jeremiahs who claim that the increased costs of storm damage prove that storms are getting more frequent and severe, and used as evidence of the impact of global warming. There may or may not be an aspect of that, but ignoring construction and price-increases very much exaggerates the impact of climate.
Don't worry about whether the first part - the claims of increasing incidence of hurricanes due to global warming - is true. It's the second part, on costs of insurance, that is relevant. True, it doesn't quantify exactly what share of increased costs of storm-damage are attributable to inappropriate buildings, but the drift is clear.
It would be interesting to look at increases in total real-estate value on the south and east coasts and compare that with increases in prices to get an idea how much additional value was due to construction vs price-increases. And then compare that with the increases in total claims for storm damage to see whether claims are increasing faster than values. I can't find that data easily, but it would be a useful corrective to the jeremiahs who claim that the increased costs of storm damage prove that storms are getting more frequent and severe, and used as evidence of the impact of global warming. There may or may not be an aspect of that, but ignoring construction and price-increases very much exaggerates the impact of climate.
Let's try again. The URL for The Economist article got chopped in the last one. See if this works:
Economist article
Economist article
Thanks for this info.
I hadn't taken note of the argument that increasing monetary amounts of damage are evidence of increasing storm activity. Such an argument is crazy, even if damage amounts are converted to real terms (which they probably aren't). And the reason it's crazy is exactly what you suggest.
I was inspired to write this post after reading an old (from about the time the Soviets first built nukes) paper by economist Jack Hirshleifer in which he argued that if government was going to pay citizens to rebuild for war damages in event of a nuclear attack, it would be better to instead have nuke attack insurance, since risk-adjusted premiums wouldn't destroy the incentive of citizens to take measures that would reduce risk. (He was refering to big industrial plants. Relocation, building from better materials, etc. could all reduce damage risk.)
I saw the same thing when I worked in crop insurance. Federal disaster payments destroyed incentives to avoid risk. Subsidized crop insurance wasn't so bad, since the producers still gained from reducing risk. But better yet was market insurance -- although too much of it is crowded out by gov't subsidized insurance.
I hadn't taken note of the argument that increasing monetary amounts of damage are evidence of increasing storm activity. Such an argument is crazy, even if damage amounts are converted to real terms (which they probably aren't). And the reason it's crazy is exactly what you suggest.
I was inspired to write this post after reading an old (from about the time the Soviets first built nukes) paper by economist Jack Hirshleifer in which he argued that if government was going to pay citizens to rebuild for war damages in event of a nuclear attack, it would be better to instead have nuke attack insurance, since risk-adjusted premiums wouldn't destroy the incentive of citizens to take measures that would reduce risk. (He was refering to big industrial plants. Relocation, building from better materials, etc. could all reduce damage risk.)
I saw the same thing when I worked in crop insurance. Federal disaster payments destroyed incentives to avoid risk. Subsidized crop insurance wasn't so bad, since the producers still gained from reducing risk. But better yet was market insurance -- although too much of it is crowded out by gov't subsidized insurance.
Subject: Planned Environment vs. Planned Economy
Thank you Dr. Steele for inviting post-science to comment on this topic, which is closely related to post-science. Your reasoning and conclusion below are quite good. Personally, I tend to lean toward your and Prof. Prior’s argument for non-government intervention, but post-science has additional comments and criticisms. You are also correct in expecting post-science to contribute to the policy analysis. Post-science would like to suggest, and it has suggested often, that all policies should be analyzed by a proper infinite spreadsheet, regardless how approximate are the inputs or how rough is the formulation of the problem.
Dr. Steele writes: “So here’s the bottom line about taxpayer-funded damage reparations. They’re immoral, they set citizen against citizen, they create incentives to build in ways and places that will make future disasters even more costly, and they create incentives and arguments for bureaucrats to “remedy” the situation by taking away our rights.
…This lesson isn’t lost on them, and hence, don’t expect to see any intelligent discussion on this issue.
I would think post-science has something to say on this issue, since it so directly considers the future values of assets under alternative policy regimes and states of nature.”
Without the Infinite Spreadsheet, a socioeconomic decision is always either for or against. When the Infinite Spreadsheet is accepted as the standard, all decisions will be balanced based on quantitative calculation, as in the case of real estate and stock transactions based on the Infinite Spreadsheet, in which the disaster insurance is simply an expense item, identical to the fire insurance, which can be passed on to the consumers. In this way, your and Prof. Prior’s analysis is easy to implement.
Also, please forgive me if I offend your side of the argument with post-science analysis. But, post-science generally objects to the other side with equal weight. Post-science finds your and Prof. Prior’s arguments sound, but would like to extend them into policies based on post-Friedman knowledge. Many people will object to your argument as harsh and unkind, as they have thought about Milton Friedman throughout his life and, as post-science predicts, forever. Marx has described history as a continuing struggle between two classes, post-science would go beyond socioeconomic concern of Marx and Friedman and would classify history from the point of view of life science as the Balance of Good and Evil (by the Infinite Spreadsheet vs. Beyond Good and Evil by Fredrick Nietzche). Post-science would even go further into self-creation in life science to suggest that we can really understand our environment only when we start to self-create it. Please allow me to elaborate (if you or readers are still interested).
Post-science summarizes human civilization into following stages: (1) Animalistic existence, (2) Kings, dictators, and churches, (3) Government regulations, (4) Free Market and deregulation, (5) Regulations by laws of nature in physical and social sciences, (6) Self-creation, and (7) Knowledge-Led Society. Stages (1) and (4) endorses self-interest and competition (evil?) in order to achieve greater good in social progress. Evil is prevalent in (1) and (4), where the weak practices evil to balance the strong in competition. In Stages (2) and (3), dictators, governments, and churches attempt to control evil with man-made regulations, resulting in that they become the greatest evil of all. After Stage (4), decisions will be based on the socioeconomic consideration in (5) with the balance of good and evil, on the meaning and purpose of creation in (6), and purely on knowledge, which is unpredictable, in (7).
Throughout history there are people who try to balance good and evil, such as Christ, Darwin, Marx, Friedman, Russell, Buddha, Mohammed, Adam Smith. Nietzche is relatively neutral, but leaning toward the tolerance of evil. Post-science believes from its concept of self-creation, that evil is created as a survival mechanism for the weak to compete against the strong. A good analogy of good and evil is the credit card, where evil is buying on credit and good is paying back or saving. The reason that evil is prevalent throughout history is that the good and evil system is communistic, where the credit card used is charged to the society, and so is the saving going to, or paying back by, the society. And most people naturally have the tendency to charge rather than to save or pay. Would you eliminate the credit card? Or, in self-creation, would you eliminate human’s ability to commit evil? Religious preoccupation with the eradication of evil just shows their emphasis on social, not life, science, as the need of their times.
Your conclusion is based on the belief that all savings accounts should be individualistic and not communistic, but it contradicts one of the basic purposes of creation, where mankind owns a joint account, which decreases by evil and increases with good. In the early stages of human civilization, most people (today) are self-centered so that they can be natural competitors. Competition is good for progress, but cooperation and unselfish acts provide a natural insurance for survival of the species as a whole, for example, ants and bees. Most post-science people are cooperative because they are knowledge-centered; I am fun-centered and have always found it hard to believe that four of the most individualistic human beings in the world can work together to found post-science.
For post-science, the story of Katrina does not end with the balance of good and evil. Post-science inquires, first, at what stage of human civilization can a problem of natural disaster be effectively addressed? It wants to speculate on a new direction for environmental study. It wants to replace conservation with environmental planning. Furthermore, it wants people to discover how to plan the environment as part of the overall process of the self-creation of the entire living system.
The answer to the first question above is that human civilization might need to be at the stage of self-creation to fully address the problem of natural disaster. The problems solvable by the current age of science are very limited. The pure scientists do not accept solutions in social science; they believe that if anyone were to solve any problems in social science rigorously, it would be them. Post-science believes that social science is still an incomplete knowledge, for it lacks the universally acceptable value judgment, which post-science believes must come from life science or creation. In the process of self-creation, we will from our own design specifications learn the ultimate meaning and purpose of our existence. When we try to creation another stable earth, we would address the problem of the acceptable amount of natural disasters in terms of the overall value of our creation. Maybe another two thousand years of progress.
Since the Infinite Spreadsheet is also a solution to planning, it should be used to formulating the valuation system for creating the optimum environment. Here again we must go beyond “Free Market” to the mathematical solution of value, taking into consideration all the benefits and losses to infinity in time. So far, post-science can convince no one to consider infinity. Post-science needs help.
From the plan, mankind will start to appreciate how extraordinarily stable is our planet and how most of the creations far surpasses the creations of our current engineers. As a case in point, while all humans, animals, and insects can touch, no robot today can touch, and, worse, no one realizes touch is a physics problem, except post-science.
From the post-science point of view, the self-creation of the living system includes the creation of the environment suitable for survival of living things. Actually, it is just as hard to create the environment as to create its occupants. The interrelated problems must be solved in its entirety, which can be characterized, generally, as an infinite spreadsheet. Post-science hopes that knowledge will take priority over politics. It proposes, with a qualified endorsement from Milton Friedman, a Knowledge-Led Society, where the priority of authorities is in the order (1) Knowledge, (2) People of Knowledge, (3) Individuals, (4) Government, and (5) People as a whole.
When it comes to real world problems, post-science very quickly runs out of knowledge, which is substituted with speculations. As Gerard Debreu has provided a framework for the theory of value, post-science can only outline its own framework for considering the socioeconomic problem associated the Katrina natural disaster. If you insist on a solution, it would be knowledge, for which many greater thinkers have wasted their lives without finding any, but still believes theirs is the best way to live. In pracrice, I fully agree with you and Prof. Prior that in a few years, your policy suggestion will be proven correct. My concern is that a few years would be too long for people to remember. To show the power of knowledge, post-science is publicly predicting stocks. After the first week, all stocks picked moved up. Thank you, again, for the invitation and the opportunity. ### [Translated and Edited by Chien Yi Lee]
Thank you Dr. Steele for inviting post-science to comment on this topic, which is closely related to post-science. Your reasoning and conclusion below are quite good. Personally, I tend to lean toward your and Prof. Prior’s argument for non-government intervention, but post-science has additional comments and criticisms. You are also correct in expecting post-science to contribute to the policy analysis. Post-science would like to suggest, and it has suggested often, that all policies should be analyzed by a proper infinite spreadsheet, regardless how approximate are the inputs or how rough is the formulation of the problem.
Dr. Steele writes: “So here’s the bottom line about taxpayer-funded damage reparations. They’re immoral, they set citizen against citizen, they create incentives to build in ways and places that will make future disasters even more costly, and they create incentives and arguments for bureaucrats to “remedy” the situation by taking away our rights.
…This lesson isn’t lost on them, and hence, don’t expect to see any intelligent discussion on this issue.
I would think post-science has something to say on this issue, since it so directly considers the future values of assets under alternative policy regimes and states of nature.”
Without the Infinite Spreadsheet, a socioeconomic decision is always either for or against. When the Infinite Spreadsheet is accepted as the standard, all decisions will be balanced based on quantitative calculation, as in the case of real estate and stock transactions based on the Infinite Spreadsheet, in which the disaster insurance is simply an expense item, identical to the fire insurance, which can be passed on to the consumers. In this way, your and Prof. Prior’s analysis is easy to implement.
Also, please forgive me if I offend your side of the argument with post-science analysis. But, post-science generally objects to the other side with equal weight. Post-science finds your and Prof. Prior’s arguments sound, but would like to extend them into policies based on post-Friedman knowledge. Many people will object to your argument as harsh and unkind, as they have thought about Milton Friedman throughout his life and, as post-science predicts, forever. Marx has described history as a continuing struggle between two classes, post-science would go beyond socioeconomic concern of Marx and Friedman and would classify history from the point of view of life science as the Balance of Good and Evil (by the Infinite Spreadsheet vs. Beyond Good and Evil by Fredrick Nietzche). Post-science would even go further into self-creation in life science to suggest that we can really understand our environment only when we start to self-create it. Please allow me to elaborate (if you or readers are still interested).
Post-science summarizes human civilization into following stages: (1) Animalistic existence, (2) Kings, dictators, and churches, (3) Government regulations, (4) Free Market and deregulation, (5) Regulations by laws of nature in physical and social sciences, (6) Self-creation, and (7) Knowledge-Led Society. Stages (1) and (4) endorses self-interest and competition (evil?) in order to achieve greater good in social progress. Evil is prevalent in (1) and (4), where the weak practices evil to balance the strong in competition. In Stages (2) and (3), dictators, governments, and churches attempt to control evil with man-made regulations, resulting in that they become the greatest evil of all. After Stage (4), decisions will be based on the socioeconomic consideration in (5) with the balance of good and evil, on the meaning and purpose of creation in (6), and purely on knowledge, which is unpredictable, in (7).
Throughout history there are people who try to balance good and evil, such as Christ, Darwin, Marx, Friedman, Russell, Buddha, Mohammed, Adam Smith. Nietzche is relatively neutral, but leaning toward the tolerance of evil. Post-science believes from its concept of self-creation, that evil is created as a survival mechanism for the weak to compete against the strong. A good analogy of good and evil is the credit card, where evil is buying on credit and good is paying back or saving. The reason that evil is prevalent throughout history is that the good and evil system is communistic, where the credit card used is charged to the society, and so is the saving going to, or paying back by, the society. And most people naturally have the tendency to charge rather than to save or pay. Would you eliminate the credit card? Or, in self-creation, would you eliminate human’s ability to commit evil? Religious preoccupation with the eradication of evil just shows their emphasis on social, not life, science, as the need of their times.
Your conclusion is based on the belief that all savings accounts should be individualistic and not communistic, but it contradicts one of the basic purposes of creation, where mankind owns a joint account, which decreases by evil and increases with good. In the early stages of human civilization, most people (today) are self-centered so that they can be natural competitors. Competition is good for progress, but cooperation and unselfish acts provide a natural insurance for survival of the species as a whole, for example, ants and bees. Most post-science people are cooperative because they are knowledge-centered; I am fun-centered and have always found it hard to believe that four of the most individualistic human beings in the world can work together to found post-science.
For post-science, the story of Katrina does not end with the balance of good and evil. Post-science inquires, first, at what stage of human civilization can a problem of natural disaster be effectively addressed? It wants to speculate on a new direction for environmental study. It wants to replace conservation with environmental planning. Furthermore, it wants people to discover how to plan the environment as part of the overall process of the self-creation of the entire living system.
The answer to the first question above is that human civilization might need to be at the stage of self-creation to fully address the problem of natural disaster. The problems solvable by the current age of science are very limited. The pure scientists do not accept solutions in social science; they believe that if anyone were to solve any problems in social science rigorously, it would be them. Post-science believes that social science is still an incomplete knowledge, for it lacks the universally acceptable value judgment, which post-science believes must come from life science or creation. In the process of self-creation, we will from our own design specifications learn the ultimate meaning and purpose of our existence. When we try to creation another stable earth, we would address the problem of the acceptable amount of natural disasters in terms of the overall value of our creation. Maybe another two thousand years of progress.
Since the Infinite Spreadsheet is also a solution to planning, it should be used to formulating the valuation system for creating the optimum environment. Here again we must go beyond “Free Market” to the mathematical solution of value, taking into consideration all the benefits and losses to infinity in time. So far, post-science can convince no one to consider infinity. Post-science needs help.
From the plan, mankind will start to appreciate how extraordinarily stable is our planet and how most of the creations far surpasses the creations of our current engineers. As a case in point, while all humans, animals, and insects can touch, no robot today can touch, and, worse, no one realizes touch is a physics problem, except post-science.
From the post-science point of view, the self-creation of the living system includes the creation of the environment suitable for survival of living things. Actually, it is just as hard to create the environment as to create its occupants. The interrelated problems must be solved in its entirety, which can be characterized, generally, as an infinite spreadsheet. Post-science hopes that knowledge will take priority over politics. It proposes, with a qualified endorsement from Milton Friedman, a Knowledge-Led Society, where the priority of authorities is in the order (1) Knowledge, (2) People of Knowledge, (3) Individuals, (4) Government, and (5) People as a whole.
When it comes to real world problems, post-science very quickly runs out of knowledge, which is substituted with speculations. As Gerard Debreu has provided a framework for the theory of value, post-science can only outline its own framework for considering the socioeconomic problem associated the Katrina natural disaster. If you insist on a solution, it would be knowledge, for which many greater thinkers have wasted their lives without finding any, but still believes theirs is the best way to live. In pracrice, I fully agree with you and Prof. Prior that in a few years, your policy suggestion will be proven correct. My concern is that a few years would be too long for people to remember. To show the power of knowledge, post-science is publicly predicting stocks. After the first week, all stocks picked moved up. Thank you, again, for the invitation and the opportunity. ### [Translated and Edited by Chien Yi Lee]
Thanks for your comment, Dr. Lee.
But I do not understand what you mean by "good" and "evil." I suspect P-S assigns them a specific meaning, and until I know what you mean I can't evaluate your argument.
Brief definitions will help.
Best,
Charles
But I do not understand what you mean by "good" and "evil." I suspect P-S assigns them a specific meaning, and until I know what you mean I can't evaluate your argument.
Brief definitions will help.
Best,
Charles
Subject: The Quantification of Evil
Thank you, Dr. Steele, for the good question, which readdresses the whole problem in a general way, and, thus, for giving me another chance to shorten my previous comment.
Basically, every culture has its own perception of evil, as most social scientists would like to say. Post-science can actually quantify evil with the definition: Evil is an act which decreases value, as calculated by, say, the Infinite Spreadsheet. For example, one steals $100.00, resulting in decreasing the value of another party. However, the $100.00 stolen helps to feed one’s family, which otherwise would have starved to death. The lives of one’s family are certainly worth more than $100.00. Here is a demonstration of evil as a survival mechanism for the weak to struggle to survive. To the other party, the act of stealing is evil, but the act of stealing actually increases the value of the society as a whole. Here is an illustration of good, defined as an act which increases value.
Properly formulated, good or evil can be quantified, with the solution of value (This is the purpose of my post; maybe we should concentrate our effort on stock prediction because this problem is too involved). The inputs depend on the perception of value, which is reflected in the Non-Monetary Return and differs generally not just for each culture, but also for each person. Post-science believes that good and evil is a subject in life science, where the ultimate perception of value will be determined in the process of self-creation, where, from our own design specification, the true nature and purpose of good and evil will be revealed. For the time being, good and evil remain a personal knowledge, but do exist. It is one of the purposes of post-science to prevent people to use evil as an excuse for war; value determination or rational arbitration should be the method for settling a disagreement, such as one between the buyer and the seller of a commercial real estate, that, unfortunately, is all post-science can surely do for now. ### [Chien Yi Lee]
Thank you, Dr. Steele, for the good question, which readdresses the whole problem in a general way, and, thus, for giving me another chance to shorten my previous comment.
Basically, every culture has its own perception of evil, as most social scientists would like to say. Post-science can actually quantify evil with the definition: Evil is an act which decreases value, as calculated by, say, the Infinite Spreadsheet. For example, one steals $100.00, resulting in decreasing the value of another party. However, the $100.00 stolen helps to feed one’s family, which otherwise would have starved to death. The lives of one’s family are certainly worth more than $100.00. Here is a demonstration of evil as a survival mechanism for the weak to struggle to survive. To the other party, the act of stealing is evil, but the act of stealing actually increases the value of the society as a whole. Here is an illustration of good, defined as an act which increases value.
Properly formulated, good or evil can be quantified, with the solution of value (This is the purpose of my post; maybe we should concentrate our effort on stock prediction because this problem is too involved). The inputs depend on the perception of value, which is reflected in the Non-Monetary Return and differs generally not just for each culture, but also for each person. Post-science believes that good and evil is a subject in life science, where the ultimate perception of value will be determined in the process of self-creation, where, from our own design specification, the true nature and purpose of good and evil will be revealed. For the time being, good and evil remain a personal knowledge, but do exist. It is one of the purposes of post-science to prevent people to use evil as an excuse for war; value determination or rational arbitration should be the method for settling a disagreement, such as one between the buyer and the seller of a commercial real estate, that, unfortunately, is all post-science can surely do for now. ### [Chien Yi Lee]
Thanks, Dr. Lee.
But I asked for a definition of good & evil, not how damages might be quantified -- a quite different question.
What is "stealing?"
But I asked for a definition of good & evil, not how damages might be quantified -- a quite different question.
What is "stealing?"
Subject: The Role Of The Definition (of value, good, and evil)
Here is an even shorter version of my previous comment. Good is defined as an action, which increases value, and evil, decreases value. For example, for every real estate, or any business, transaction, value increases and, thus, any transaction is good. The increase value is due to an increase in the expected Non-Monetary Return, since the expected Monetary Return should be the same for both parties. For other human activities, because of the different perception of the Non-Monetary Return involved, calculation of value generally involves factors beyond socioeconomic concerns. Stealing, by definition, is evil, but it could be for a larger good cause. Post-science conclusion is that it takes mankind over 5000 years of recorded history to complete real estate valuation, and another 30 years to even try stock valuation, and that any problem more complex than stock valuation would just be speculations.
Fundamentally, definitions should be given AFTER a problem is solved; the definition, the formulation, the method, the solution, etc. of a problem should be inseparable parts of a solved problem. Post-science (and I am sure Prof. Feyerabend, too) disagrees with you generally in insisting on providing definitions before obtaining the solution. Good and evil can be defined just with IS for real estates, but cannot be solved in general. Post-science has yet to convince the society of IS. Even worse, Debreu and Arrow have yet to convince economists the necessity of considering infinity.
It has been a very long time since I learn from post-science that market price is generally incorrect and that definitions are given to serve a solution. I’ve never thought that these two concepts are useful. In my other post-science post, I suggest we concentrate on the correctness of the market price, and this one, the role of the definition. Thanks for getting to the bottom of both cases. ### [Edited by Chien Yi Lee]
Here is an even shorter version of my previous comment. Good is defined as an action, which increases value, and evil, decreases value. For example, for every real estate, or any business, transaction, value increases and, thus, any transaction is good. The increase value is due to an increase in the expected Non-Monetary Return, since the expected Monetary Return should be the same for both parties. For other human activities, because of the different perception of the Non-Monetary Return involved, calculation of value generally involves factors beyond socioeconomic concerns. Stealing, by definition, is evil, but it could be for a larger good cause. Post-science conclusion is that it takes mankind over 5000 years of recorded history to complete real estate valuation, and another 30 years to even try stock valuation, and that any problem more complex than stock valuation would just be speculations.
Fundamentally, definitions should be given AFTER a problem is solved; the definition, the formulation, the method, the solution, etc. of a problem should be inseparable parts of a solved problem. Post-science (and I am sure Prof. Feyerabend, too) disagrees with you generally in insisting on providing definitions before obtaining the solution. Good and evil can be defined just with IS for real estates, but cannot be solved in general. Post-science has yet to convince the society of IS. Even worse, Debreu and Arrow have yet to convince economists the necessity of considering infinity.
It has been a very long time since I learn from post-science that market price is generally incorrect and that definitions are given to serve a solution. I’ve never thought that these two concepts are useful. In my other post-science post, I suggest we concentrate on the correctness of the market price, and this one, the role of the definition. Thanks for getting to the bottom of both cases. ### [Edited by Chien Yi Lee]
Thanks for the reply, Dr Lee. I believe there are some fundamental weaknesses in the P-S position on these matters.
You write:"Good is defined as an action, which increases value, and evil, decreases value. For example, for every real estate, or any business, transaction, value increases and, thus, any transaction is good. The increase value is due to an increase in the expected Non-Monetary Return, since the expected Monetary Return should be the same for both parties."
My reply:.
In other words, whether an action is good or evil is defined according to effect the sum of all pecuniary valuations in the economy? Then P-S has missed the very important point that these valuations exist only in the context of a given distribution of property rights. All valuations are based upon willingness to pay, which includes ability to pay. These numbers, prices, have meaning only as someone’s willingness to pay, which is crucially dependent upon ability to pay. Even in the simplest blackboard models (e.g. an Edgeworth box) a general equilibrium exhibits hysteresis.
You also write: "Fundamentally, definitions should be given AFTER a problem is solved; the definition, the formulation, the method, the solution, etc. of a problem should be inseparable parts of a solved problem. Post-science (and I am sure Prof. Feyerabend, too) disagrees with you generally in insisting on providing definitions before obtaining the solution."
And my response: This is a fundamental confusion. A definition isn’t a complete description. What is a solution? How do you know when you’ve found it? Suppose I sit down with a system of equations to solve. I can know what a solution is in advance, even if I do not know the exact details of the solution in the case at hand. I know, for example, that when I am halfway through the problem, it would make no sense to stop and say “Aha, I’ve arrived at the solution!” because I know in advance what are the properties of a solution. I believe that my position here is indeed counter to Feyerabend’s “anything goes” nihilism, but Feyerabend’s position is a dead end. Stopping when halfway finished with a solution, and for that matter having used fallacious techniques, can’t be ruled out when “anything goes.” It’s the world of Dostoevsky’s underground man, “why shouldn’t 2 + 2 = 3 if I want it to be?” We need to be back in the world of Galileo, “it still moves” [regardless of what we want] which is the real world.
Also, I don’t think you are being consistent here. Whether this is simply an oversight on your part, or intentional application of Feyerabendism, I don’t know, but you keep referring to stealing, even saying it is evil by definition, yet can’t or won’t give a definition. And what’s more, you can’t do so, without running afoul of the problem that valuations can be defined only within a context of given property rights. Vilfredo Pareto was made this clear one hundred years ago, although hardly anyone has taken it seriously.
I’m tempted to ask about practical applications of these ideas of good and evil. Doesn’t it mean that we cannot say that the rape of Nanjing, camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and the like are evil until we know who won the war? I’m quite sure it does. But a standard like that isn’t of any use for human beings.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am mistaken on this. And of course I don’t accuse P-S of endorsing such horrors (after all, you are fans of Friedman). But where else can “good and evil will be defined AFTER the problem of value is solved” lead?
I realize that P-S believes it can find an objective basis for ethics, one that everyone can and presumably will accept. I am very doubtful. At the very least, an individual always has a choice to be for or against life, and this is a fundamental value judgement, about which "proof" of truth status is irrelevant.
Again, many thanks to you, Dr. Lee, for your input and the stimulating discussion.
You write:"Good is defined as an action, which increases value, and evil, decreases value. For example, for every real estate, or any business, transaction, value increases and, thus, any transaction is good. The increase value is due to an increase in the expected Non-Monetary Return, since the expected Monetary Return should be the same for both parties."
My reply:.
In other words, whether an action is good or evil is defined according to effect the sum of all pecuniary valuations in the economy? Then P-S has missed the very important point that these valuations exist only in the context of a given distribution of property rights. All valuations are based upon willingness to pay, which includes ability to pay. These numbers, prices, have meaning only as someone’s willingness to pay, which is crucially dependent upon ability to pay. Even in the simplest blackboard models (e.g. an Edgeworth box) a general equilibrium exhibits hysteresis.
You also write: "Fundamentally, definitions should be given AFTER a problem is solved; the definition, the formulation, the method, the solution, etc. of a problem should be inseparable parts of a solved problem. Post-science (and I am sure Prof. Feyerabend, too) disagrees with you generally in insisting on providing definitions before obtaining the solution."
And my response: This is a fundamental confusion. A definition isn’t a complete description. What is a solution? How do you know when you’ve found it? Suppose I sit down with a system of equations to solve. I can know what a solution is in advance, even if I do not know the exact details of the solution in the case at hand. I know, for example, that when I am halfway through the problem, it would make no sense to stop and say “Aha, I’ve arrived at the solution!” because I know in advance what are the properties of a solution. I believe that my position here is indeed counter to Feyerabend’s “anything goes” nihilism, but Feyerabend’s position is a dead end. Stopping when halfway finished with a solution, and for that matter having used fallacious techniques, can’t be ruled out when “anything goes.” It’s the world of Dostoevsky’s underground man, “why shouldn’t 2 + 2 = 3 if I want it to be?” We need to be back in the world of Galileo, “it still moves” [regardless of what we want] which is the real world.
Also, I don’t think you are being consistent here. Whether this is simply an oversight on your part, or intentional application of Feyerabendism, I don’t know, but you keep referring to stealing, even saying it is evil by definition, yet can’t or won’t give a definition. And what’s more, you can’t do so, without running afoul of the problem that valuations can be defined only within a context of given property rights. Vilfredo Pareto was made this clear one hundred years ago, although hardly anyone has taken it seriously.
I’m tempted to ask about practical applications of these ideas of good and evil. Doesn’t it mean that we cannot say that the rape of Nanjing, camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and the like are evil until we know who won the war? I’m quite sure it does. But a standard like that isn’t of any use for human beings.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am mistaken on this. And of course I don’t accuse P-S of endorsing such horrors (after all, you are fans of Friedman). But where else can “good and evil will be defined AFTER the problem of value is solved” lead?
I realize that P-S believes it can find an objective basis for ethics, one that everyone can and presumably will accept. I am very doubtful. At the very least, an individual always has a choice to be for or against life, and this is a fundamental value judgement, about which "proof" of truth status is irrelevant.
Again, many thanks to you, Dr. Lee, for your input and the stimulating discussion.
Thank you Dr. Steele for your analyses, with which I tend to agree, and which possibly state the logic better than I do. For example, the statements below Non-Monetary Return variation = distribution.
{Charles N. Steele said...
Thanks for the reply, Dr Lee. I believe there are some fundamental weaknesses in the P-S position on these matters.
You write:"Good is defined as an action, which increases value, and evil, decreases value. For example, for every real estate, or any business, transaction, value increases and, thus, any transaction is good. The increase value is due to an increase in the expected Non-Monetary Return, since the expected Monetary Return should be the same for both parties."
My reply:.
In other words, whether an action is good or evil is defined according to effect the sum of all pecuniary valuations in the economy? Then P-S has missed the very important point that these valuations exist only in the context of a given distribution of property rights. All valuations are based upon willingness to pay, which includes ability to pay. These numbers, prices, have meaning only as someone’s willingness to pay, which is crucially dependent upon ability to pay. Even in the simplest blackboard models (e.g. an Edgeworth box) a general equilibrium exhibits hysteresis.}
Also below, logically, we are both right. In P-S, the problems solved are defined by P-S after the solutions, which overthrow the established solutions, with their definitions. You are allowed to do what you think is right. However, P-S has yet to see a usable valuation software or solution (which considers to infinity in time) on the market. P-S believes that good and evil is defined by our creators in their problem of creation. P-S does not have the solution of creation or the inputs for good and evil, but just by knowing that good and evil exist, P-S can speculate on the wisdom of creation, particularly, on the usefulness and the communistic nature of good and evil. I feel that these speculations are very useful in explaining religion (promoters of good) and the views which endorse “evil,” however it’s defined. P-S. does define evil in terms of valuation, but the valuation on good and evil depends on value judgment, which is still way beyond the current understanding of P-S. In particular, P-S does not “believes it can find an objective basis for ethics…” Our creators probably can, but P-S does not know that either.
Dr Steele writes: {You also write: "Fundamentally, definitions should be given AFTER a problem is solved; the definition, the formulation, the method, the solution, etc. of a problem should be inseparable parts of a solved problem. Post-science (and I am sure Prof. Feyerabend, too) disagrees with you generally in insisting on providing definitions before obtaining the solution."
And my response: This is a fundamental confusion. A definition isn’t a complete description. What is a solution? How do you know when you’ve found it? Suppose I sit down with a system of equations to solve. I can know what a solution is in advance, even if I do not know the exact details of the solution in the case at hand. I know, for example, that when I am halfway through the problem, it would make no sense to stop and say “Aha, I’ve arrived at the solution!” because I know in advance what are the properties of a solution. I believe that my position here is indeed counter to Feyerabend’s “anything goes” nihilism, but Feyerabend’s position is a dead end. Stopping when halfway finished with a solution, and for that matter having used fallacious techniques, can’t be ruled out when “anything goes.” It’s the world of Dostoevsky’s underground man, “why shouldn’t 2 + 2 = 3 if I want it to be?” We need to be back in the world of Galileo, “it still moves” [regardless of what we want] which is the real world.”
Also, I don’t think you are being consistent here. Whether this is simply an oversight on your part, or intentional application of Feyerabendism, I don’t know, but you keep referring to stealing, even saying it is evil by definition, yet can’t or won’t give a definition. And what’s more, you can’t do so, without running afoul of the problem that valuations can be defined only within a context of given property rights. Vilfredo Pareto was made this clear one hundred years ago, although hardly anyone has taken it seriously.
I’m tempted to ask about practical applications of these ideas of good and evil. Doesn’t it mean that we cannot say that the rape of Nanjing, camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and the like are evil until we know who won the war? I’m quite sure it does. But a standard like that isn’t of any use for human beings.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am mistaken on this. And of course I don’t accuse P-S of endorsing such horrors (after all, you are fans of Friedman). But where else can “good and evil will be defined AFTER the problem of value is solved” lead?
I realize that P-S believes it can find an objective basis for ethics, one that everyone can and presumably will accept. I am very doubtful. At the very least, an individual always has a choice to be for or against life, and this is a fundamental value judgement, about which "proof" of truth status is irrelevant.}
Generally, I believe that we both follow ordinary logical path with the possible misunderstanding that P-S is trying to make discoveries, not based on any given problems, while you and other rationalists are trying to solve given problems. In this regard, P-S presents many solutions to its own formulated problems, and others have little to offer in terms of solutions, any solution which can be practically applied, regardless right of wrong. In terms of value, the only P-S successful application of its solution of value is real estate valuation; the application to stocks is still being tested. P-S view is from life science, but it is still standing inside social science, which needs life science to provide the inputs for such problems as good and evil; we are both discussion topics way beyond our understanding.
I am hoping that your friends and visitors can help P-S in its challenges to the established intellectual community on, as I mentioned in the P-S Post:
(1) Touch is a physics problem, not a tactile or material problem,
(2) Stock Prediction, and
(3) Google needs Universal Permanent Numbers for One-To-One Search and Globally Searchable Integer ID Numbers.
Regarding (1) above, P-S starts from Jumpulse Table Tennis and Jumpulse Tennis or creating the future champions in sports and from soliciting endorsement from current champions in almost ALL sports, who are ALL practicing Jumpulse. http://www.jumpulse.com; http://www.jumpulsetennis.com; http://www.ballcontrol.net. The only (non-political) way to settle a dispute is across a table tennis table or a tennis court in a competition; this is the surefire way to start the promotion of P-S, if jumpulse is correct. Still, I must thank you for the exercise in intellectual speculation and for suspecting P-S knows far more than it really does. ### [Chien Yi Lee]
Post a Comment
{Charles N. Steele said...
Thanks for the reply, Dr Lee. I believe there are some fundamental weaknesses in the P-S position on these matters.
You write:"Good is defined as an action, which increases value, and evil, decreases value. For example, for every real estate, or any business, transaction, value increases and, thus, any transaction is good. The increase value is due to an increase in the expected Non-Monetary Return, since the expected Monetary Return should be the same for both parties."
My reply:.
In other words, whether an action is good or evil is defined according to effect the sum of all pecuniary valuations in the economy? Then P-S has missed the very important point that these valuations exist only in the context of a given distribution of property rights. All valuations are based upon willingness to pay, which includes ability to pay. These numbers, prices, have meaning only as someone’s willingness to pay, which is crucially dependent upon ability to pay. Even in the simplest blackboard models (e.g. an Edgeworth box) a general equilibrium exhibits hysteresis.}
Also below, logically, we are both right. In P-S, the problems solved are defined by P-S after the solutions, which overthrow the established solutions, with their definitions. You are allowed to do what you think is right. However, P-S has yet to see a usable valuation software or solution (which considers to infinity in time) on the market. P-S believes that good and evil is defined by our creators in their problem of creation. P-S does not have the solution of creation or the inputs for good and evil, but just by knowing that good and evil exist, P-S can speculate on the wisdom of creation, particularly, on the usefulness and the communistic nature of good and evil. I feel that these speculations are very useful in explaining religion (promoters of good) and the views which endorse “evil,” however it’s defined. P-S. does define evil in terms of valuation, but the valuation on good and evil depends on value judgment, which is still way beyond the current understanding of P-S. In particular, P-S does not “believes it can find an objective basis for ethics…” Our creators probably can, but P-S does not know that either.
Dr Steele writes: {You also write: "Fundamentally, definitions should be given AFTER a problem is solved; the definition, the formulation, the method, the solution, etc. of a problem should be inseparable parts of a solved problem. Post-science (and I am sure Prof. Feyerabend, too) disagrees with you generally in insisting on providing definitions before obtaining the solution."
And my response: This is a fundamental confusion. A definition isn’t a complete description. What is a solution? How do you know when you’ve found it? Suppose I sit down with a system of equations to solve. I can know what a solution is in advance, even if I do not know the exact details of the solution in the case at hand. I know, for example, that when I am halfway through the problem, it would make no sense to stop and say “Aha, I’ve arrived at the solution!” because I know in advance what are the properties of a solution. I believe that my position here is indeed counter to Feyerabend’s “anything goes” nihilism, but Feyerabend’s position is a dead end. Stopping when halfway finished with a solution, and for that matter having used fallacious techniques, can’t be ruled out when “anything goes.” It’s the world of Dostoevsky’s underground man, “why shouldn’t 2 + 2 = 3 if I want it to be?” We need to be back in the world of Galileo, “it still moves” [regardless of what we want] which is the real world.”
Also, I don’t think you are being consistent here. Whether this is simply an oversight on your part, or intentional application of Feyerabendism, I don’t know, but you keep referring to stealing, even saying it is evil by definition, yet can’t or won’t give a definition. And what’s more, you can’t do so, without running afoul of the problem that valuations can be defined only within a context of given property rights. Vilfredo Pareto was made this clear one hundred years ago, although hardly anyone has taken it seriously.
I’m tempted to ask about practical applications of these ideas of good and evil. Doesn’t it mean that we cannot say that the rape of Nanjing, camps at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and the like are evil until we know who won the war? I’m quite sure it does. But a standard like that isn’t of any use for human beings.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am mistaken on this. And of course I don’t accuse P-S of endorsing such horrors (after all, you are fans of Friedman). But where else can “good and evil will be defined AFTER the problem of value is solved” lead?
I realize that P-S believes it can find an objective basis for ethics, one that everyone can and presumably will accept. I am very doubtful. At the very least, an individual always has a choice to be for or against life, and this is a fundamental value judgement, about which "proof" of truth status is irrelevant.}
Generally, I believe that we both follow ordinary logical path with the possible misunderstanding that P-S is trying to make discoveries, not based on any given problems, while you and other rationalists are trying to solve given problems. In this regard, P-S presents many solutions to its own formulated problems, and others have little to offer in terms of solutions, any solution which can be practically applied, regardless right of wrong. In terms of value, the only P-S successful application of its solution of value is real estate valuation; the application to stocks is still being tested. P-S view is from life science, but it is still standing inside social science, which needs life science to provide the inputs for such problems as good and evil; we are both discussion topics way beyond our understanding.
I am hoping that your friends and visitors can help P-S in its challenges to the established intellectual community on, as I mentioned in the P-S Post:
(1) Touch is a physics problem, not a tactile or material problem,
(2) Stock Prediction, and
(3) Google needs Universal Permanent Numbers for One-To-One Search and Globally Searchable Integer ID Numbers.
Regarding (1) above, P-S starts from Jumpulse Table Tennis and Jumpulse Tennis or creating the future champions in sports and from soliciting endorsement from current champions in almost ALL sports, who are ALL practicing Jumpulse. http://www.jumpulse.com; http://www.jumpulsetennis.com; http://www.ballcontrol.net. The only (non-political) way to settle a dispute is across a table tennis table or a tennis court in a competition; this is the surefire way to start the promotion of P-S, if jumpulse is correct. Still, I must thank you for the exercise in intellectual speculation and for suspecting P-S knows far more than it really does. ### [Chien Yi Lee]
<< Home
